By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the State Commission”), IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited (for short “the Insurance Company”) calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 16.01.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula in First Appeal No.147 of 2014. By the impugned order, while affirming the order dated 22.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.335 of 2012, the State Commission has reduced the compensation awarded by the District Forum to the Complainant on account of the loss suffered by him due to theft of the insured tractor during the night of 19.03.2009. In turn, the District Forum, while holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim, preferred by the Complainant on the ground of alleged violation of conditions No.1, 5 and -3- 8 of the insurance policy, it came to the conclusion that insofar as the question of not taking reasonable care of the tractor in question, the Insurance Company had failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the keys of the tractor had been left in the tractor when it was stolen and that the delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR was not fatal as the information regarding the theft was given to the Insurance Company the very next day by a letter, sent under the certificate of posting. Although the State Commission endorsed the afore-said findings, yet taking note of the delay in FIR, has directed settlement of the claim on non-standard basis. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties for some time and perused the documents, including the handwritten letter from the Complainant to the Insurance Company, and bearing in mind the fact that the State Commission has reduced the amount of compensation, as awarded by the District Forum, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in our Revisional Jurisdiction, insofar as the afore-noted findings on merits of the claim are concerned, more so when the factum of theft of the tractor has not been disputed by the Insurance Company. However, having regard to the fact that there was some delay in lodging the FIR, though not fatal to the entire claim, as held by the Fora below, we are of the view that since -4- there was some lapse on the part of the Complainant on that account, the award of interest on the principal amount of ₹3,15,000/- @ 9% p.a. is on the higher side. Accordingly, we reduce the same and direct that the principal amount, as reduced by the State Commission, i.e. ₹3,15,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. Since the tractor was financed by Respondents No.2 and 3 and as per the Statement of Account of the Complainant, furnished by learned Counsel appearing for them, some amount is still due from the Complainant to the said Respondents, we direct that the compensation along with interest, due to be paid to the Complainant, shall be remitted by the Insurance Company to either of Respondents No.2 and 3, which happen to be the branch offices of the same Finance company, within four weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Resultantly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above, with no order as to costs. |
